A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

below $1000 film vs digital



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old June 21st 04, 12:21 AM
Vincent Becker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


yes, good question, i can find the epson 3200 for a third of the price of the
epson 4870... how good is the epson 3200?


I have an Epson 3170 which should be the same. You can see a 300 DPI scan
from a 6x6 negative here, and a magnification at 3200 DPI of the two
characters slightly on the left in the foreground:

http://www.lumieresenboite.com/galerie_express/55.htm

Note that the newton rings on the left of the Tower are due to a glass plate
I used, the 120 adapter that comes with the scanner doesn't cause it.

Hope this helps,
--
Vincent Becker
Photographie et appareils anciens - Photography and classic cameras
URL:http://www.lumieresenboite.com
Merci de passer par mon site pour les réponses par courriel
  #162  
Old June 21st 04, 02:34 AM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Andrew Price" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 07:09:18 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:

[---]

Because the scanners don't cough up their advertised resolution. The 4800
dpi Epson 4870 results in images a bit _softer_ than a quality 2700 or

2800
dpi dedicated film scanner.


Is it significantly better than its predecessor, the Epson 3200?


Everyone seems to think it's at least _slightly_ better. The comparison at
http://www.gnyman.com/
looks sensible and believable.

You will want to scan at 4800 dpi and then downsample. Which means that for
MF you need an enourmous amount of memory.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #163  
Old June 21st 04, 03:01 AM
one_of_many
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

In article , "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:

"Andrew Price" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 07:09:18 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:

[---]

Because the scanners don't cough up their advertised resolution. The 4800
dpi Epson 4870 results in images a bit _softer_ than a quality 2700 or

2800
dpi dedicated film scanner.


Is it significantly better than its predecessor, the Epson 3200?


Everyone seems to think it's at least _slightly_ better. The comparison at
http://www.gnyman.com/
looks sensible and believable.


I hate it. I have the 3200.

You will want to scan at 4800 dpi and then downsample. Which means that for
MF you need an enourmous amount of memory.


Why downsample, David? Why not scan to just a modest amount greater than
that required in the final print?
  #164  
Old June 21st 04, 03:20 AM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


You will want to scan at 4800 dpi and then downsample. Which means that for
MF you need an enourmous amount of memory.

David J. Littleboy


David.. the Epson 4870 is hard to find at a reasonable price for me. Reasonable
meaning that i'd only need it for the occasional shots. I'd rather wait for it
to depreciate and meanwhile use something less costly. What do you recommend i
look at for 645 film? especially one that had been on the market for long
enough and depreciated considerably, but likely durable to be found in good
condition, and was popular enough to be found easily?

regards
  #165  
Old June 21st 04, 03:27 AM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"one_of_many" wrote

You will want to scan at 4800 dpi and then downsample. Which means that

for
MF you need an enourmous amount of memory.


Why downsample, David? Why not scan to just a modest amount greater than
that required in the final print?


Because, I think, you capture more information by scanning at higher
resolution, and that corresponds to better detail rendition after you
downsample. I could be wrong.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #166  
Old June 21st 04, 03:36 AM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...

You will want to scan at 4800 dpi and then downsample. Which means that

for
MF you need an enourmous amount of memory.

David J. Littleboy


David.. the Epson 4870 is hard to find at a reasonable price for me.

Reasonable
meaning that i'd only need it for the occasional shots. I'd rather wait

for it
to depreciate and meanwhile use something less costly. What do you

recommend i
look at for 645 film?


My experience was that the 2450 was a waste of time.

Remember that your time scanning is worth something. If you buy a cheap
scanner and have to rescan later, the time you spent scanning with the cheap
scanner is wasted.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #167  
Old June 21st 04, 07:31 AM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

You will want to scan at 4800 dpi and then downsample. Which means that
for
MF you need an enourmous amount of memory.


David, I have 1 gigabite of fastest RAM and an Athlon 64 processor. Would this
be enough for "enormous amount of memory"? or should i not bother with a 4800
dpi scanner if my computer won't cope with it, though i'm not sure what would
if it doesn't.
  #168  
Old June 21st 04, 07:36 AM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


My experience was that the 2450 was a waste of time.

Remember that your time scanning is worth something. If you buy a cheap
scanner and have to rescan later, the time you spent scanning with the cheap
scanner is wasted.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



Good point.

BTW, would you say a dedicated film scanner is better than the epson 4870? is
so which one?
  #169  
Old June 21st 04, 08:01 AM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Sabineellen" wrote:

You will want to scan at 4800 dpi and then downsample. Which means

that
for
MF you need an enourmous amount of memory.


David, I have 1 gigabite of fastest RAM and an Athlon 64 processor. Would

this
be enough for "enormous amount of memory"? or should i not bother with a

4800
dpi scanner if my computer won't cope with it, though i'm not sure what

would
if it doesn't.


1GB might be enough, if you downsample very early on. 4800 x 2.2 x 4800 x
2.2 x 3 is a lot of bytes (335 million of them, to be precise). Notice that
16-bit scanning is not an option.

I just upgraded to 2GB, but I haven't had time to do any scanning yet.

BTW, would you say a dedicated film scanner is better than the
epson 4870? is so which one?


I'd be surprised if the Epson 4870 were even close to the Nikon 9000, but I
haven't tested them myself.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #170  
Old June 21st 04, 10:11 AM
Chris Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

In article ,
Sabineellen wrote:
You will want to scan at 4800 dpi and then downsample. Which means that

for
MF you need an enourmous amount of memory.


David, I have 1 gigabite of fastest RAM and an Athlon 64 processor. Would this
be enough for "enormous amount of memory"? or should i not bother with a 4800
dpi scanner if my computer won't cope with it, though i'm not sure what would
if it doesn't.


I'm using a 4870 and 6*6 on a Powermac G4 with 2 gigs of RAM. It copes, but
I like to get the images down to a more managable 36 million pixels before I
even de-spot them. Using the healing-brush on a 100 million pixel image is
painful, 2 gigs of RAM or no.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Leica digital back info.... Barney 35mm Photo Equipment 19 June 30th 04 12:45 AM
below $1000 film vs digital Sabineellen 35mm Photo Equipment 8 June 15th 04 07:13 AM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 09:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.